DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI vs. PRIAPUS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

4 detailed submissions made on behalf of the assessee and plea of the Assessee for reversal of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The CIT(A) found merit under the normal provisions as well as the alternative tax mechanism provided under Section 115JB of the Act. 5. In keeping with the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench relevant

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 40A(2) for determining reasonableness of price paid by the assessee. 6.7 The decision of Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in Herbalife International India (P) Ltd. (supra) applies with full force to the case at hand before us. The crux of the matter is that once the transaction is undisputedly subject matter of chapter X ‘Special Provisions relating to Avoidance

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 40A(2) for determining reasonableness of price paid by the assessee. 6.7 The decision of Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in Herbalife International India (P) Ltd. (supra) applies with full force to the case at hand before us. The crux of the matter is that once the transaction is undisputedly subject matter of chapter X ‘Special Provisions relating to Avoidance

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

disallowances aggregating to Rs. 2,85,77,271/-. 03.04.2017 The Id. C1T(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee company as non- maintainable u/s 249(4)(a) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not paid the tax due on the income returned till date, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. 21.08.2017 The AO passed an order

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

disallowances aggregating to Rs. 2,85,77,271/-. 03.04.2017 The Id. C1T(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee company as non- maintainable u/s 249(4)(a) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not paid the tax due on the income returned till date, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. 21.08.2017 The AO passed an order

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

249 (1st Floor), Preet Vihar, Delhi purchased vide registered sale deed dated 13/10/2017 against sale of old residential house B – 131, sector – 5, Noida on 06/02/2017 for Rs.1,60,00,000/-. The Ld. Counsel invited reference to para 6 of the assessment order are reproduced below: “As evident from above, assessee’s share in the property purchased on 13/10/2017 comes

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner

SHIV SHAKTI TRADERS,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

4. The assessee challenged the rectificatory order under section 154 of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A). In its grounds of appeal, the assessee stated that the order under section 154 was perse without jurisdiction and that the disallowance under section 40A(3) was not justified as the Ld. AO neither in the order under section

AJAY PAL SINGH,NOIDA GAUTOM BUDDH NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1) NOIDA GBN, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Pal Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), Village Gadi, Near Dadri Noida. Gautam Budh Nagar - 201 301 Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Axgps6679A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Had Originally Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.43,88,320/-. Subsequently, Assessee Filed Revised Return On 30.03.2021 Declaring Revised Total Income Of Rs.31,26,700/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). Subsequently, The Case

249, grant immunity from imposition of penally under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 270A (4) The Assessing Officer shall, within a period of one month from

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

249-333) where the flats were acquired from the declared sources admittedly by the Revenue, as no addition has been made in respect thereof under any of the respective two Acts. 22. Thus as for the purpose of the Explanation 4 u/s 139(1) of the Act, the ‘beneficial owner’ in respect of ‘an asset

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

4. The above position is further clarified by the usage of term 'includible' in the Heading to section 14 A of the Act and also the Heading to Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 which indicates that it is not necessary that exempt income should necessarily be included in a particular year's income, for disallowance to be triggered. Also

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

4. The above position is further clarified by the usage of term 'includible' in the Heading to section 14 A of the Act and also the Heading to Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 which indicates that it is not necessary that exempt income should necessarily be included in a particular year's income, for disallowance to be triggered. Also

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

4. The above position is further clarified by the usage of term 'includible' in the Heading to section 14 A of the Act and also the Heading to Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 which indicates that it is not necessary that exempt income should necessarily be included in a particular year's income, for disallowance to be triggered. Also

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

4. The above position is further clarified by the usage of term 'includible' in the Heading to section 14 A of the Act and also the Heading to Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 which indicates that it is not necessary that exempt income should necessarily be included in a particular year's income, for disallowance to be triggered. Also

SHOURYA TOWERS PVT LTD vs. DCIT

249 (Del). In that case, it was held that when surrender of the asset has been made on the date of search and when such surrender falls within the explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty was bound to be cancelled. 2012:DHC:7381-DB ITA 170/2012 Page 4 5. The assessee argued that since

JAYPEE INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 13(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

249. There is no such delay. The appeal was filed during COVID-19 period within the extended time limit as per Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 27.04.2021 [Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) NO.3 of 2020] and also CBDT circular dated 25.05.2021. As such, the subject appeal may please be restored to the file of CIT(A) for passing fresh

BHARTIYA INTERNATIONAL LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

4 from sales. The property in goods have been transferred in overseas jurisdiction. We thus find force in the plea of the assessee that in the instant case where the overseas agents were paid commission for securing order etc., and such services were utilised for the purpose of making or earning income from a source outside India, the assessee

CAE SIMULATION TRAINING P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to the direction contained in para 9 above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

249 2525 132 0484 law.com 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,03,45,058 under section 40(a)(i) on account of alleged non-deduction of tax at source under section 195 of the Act out of remittances outside India to Symbiotic Ltd., UK (in short "Symbiotic"). 3.1. That